The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Capitol Building (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For anyone who has been listening, scientists have been warning us about the dangers of rising global temperatures for decades. They have held conferences, conducted research on behalf of international bodies and environmental groups, and published frightening research reports. And over the past few years, their warnings have begun to come to fruition as global temperatures set new records.

Recently, we have witnessed more violent storms, rising sea levels that threaten low lying areas, and the worst drought in more than half a century has overtaken a large chunk of the country. Even the Pentagon is worried.

Whether ruled by Democrats or Republicans, Congress has been unable to respond to this threat with any meaningful environmental legislation despite repeated – and ever more dire – warnings. President Barack Obama’s promise to tackle climate change never bore fruit, and with the economy in the doldrums, environmental concerns have receded to the back burner yet again in the upcoming election.

It seems that our government is incapable of addressing the greatest long-term threat to our lives and security. Yet, such paralysis didn’t always undercut environmental legislation. In two-plus decades not too long ago, the government enacted some of the most far-reaching and effective environmental laws in the world. The last of these efforts was overseen not by a stereotypical liberal tree-hugger, but a Republican president who portrayed himself as a steward of the environment.

In July, 1989, President George H.W. Bush submitted to Congress significant amendments to the Clean Air Act aimed to reduce acid rain, toxic emissions, and pollution. After several rounds of negotiations, both houses of Congress voted for theses upgrades to the Act in overwhelming numbers (401-25 in the House; 89-10 in the Senate) and President Bush signed them into law in November, 1990. It marked the last piece of significant environmental legislation passed by the federal government, serving as a book-end for two decades of bi-partisan legislative achievements that tackled just about every major environmental threat faced by the nation.

Mired by partisanship and rancor, environmental legislation has been at a standstill ever since then despite the growing need to address environmental dangers like climate change. Considering the current state of affairs, it’s worth asking what brought this successful track record to an end and what changes must take place to reinvigorate the federal government’s ability to tackle environmental ills going forward.

Professor David M. Uhlmann, the Director of the Environmental Law and Policy Program at the University of Michigan Law School (my alma mater), has agreed to provide some answers. Prior to joining the Michigan law faculty, he spent 17 years at the Department of Justice, seven of those as Chief of the Environmental Crimes Section.

In Part I of this Question-and-Answer series, he describes how and why Congress enacted key pieces of environmental legislation starting in the early 1970s and what brought this epoch to an end. In Part II of this series, he will offer some insights on what to expect in the future.

Q: What led to the flurry of environmental legislation starting in the early 1970s?

A: Before the 1970’s, we had very few federal environmental laws. Most pollution control was handled by state and local governments and even states like California and New York had few rules. Activists and writers like Aldo Leopold, Rachel Carson, and David Brower began advocating for greater attention to environmental degradation beginning in the 1950’s but legislative efforts did not accelerate until the Santa Barbara oil spill and the burning of the Cuyahoga River in 1969.